... have ruined a bunch of my films.
I travel often and almost always carry a camera. After being periodically told that the scanners are harmless by the attendants, I sometimes just threw the films in, putting them in a separate tray from the camera.
This time it didn't work out. I figured out where it must have happened, I think the scanner stopped for a second or something focusing the ray right at few of the rolls.
So it really is worth it asking to have them hand-checked.
>>2695927
Lel.
Which airport?
>>2695928
And hey, at least they were only snapshits.
I've been through a dozen, but it must have been
Zurich.
What ISO were they? And how often were they scanned?
Not the absolute end of the world. You can fix those pretty comfortably in photoshop.
Had to do the same thing when I found I had a light leak. You could only notice it in the results if you were really looking for it.
I've put 100-400 speed film through check in baggage without harm, knock on wood.
I would definitely keep 800+ in carry on, hand checked if possible.
1. Did you check the film or was this carry-on? The xrays that scan checked luggage are much stronger. Never check film.
2. Those don't look like xrays. Everytime my film has been fucked by xrays I got swooping waves going across the film. Don't think xrays would give you straight lines like that. See photo.
>>2695927
>So it really is worth it asking to have them hand-checked.
Is it really worth it to shot MF with a Hasselblad?
if you care about your images, your question has a pretty straight forward answer.
otherwise just get a rebel
This was carry-on luggage. I've put film through it without problems dozens of times before, I fly few times a month and sometimes I just don't have the time to get it hand-checked which normally delays me by a few minutes.
Films were all ~100 iso.
>>2695947
The range is pretty compressed, I am far from an expert but it doesn't seem to be really possible.
>>2695977
so you mean this just happened once, but you put it through carry-on scanning multiple times or the one time that you put it through carry-on scanning, it turned out like this?
Had a bunch of clueless airport personnel accidentally scan all of my film through the carry-on thingy. No idea if they are good though as I haven't gotten them developed yet, but I wonder if it's even worth it. Mostly 400 ISO, with 3 rolls being 1600 unfortunately
>>2695927
>shooting film
you were asking for it.
>>2695927
That sucks. My record of scans is 6 for a batch of rolls, and there were no ill affects. Where were you?
>>2695984
I usually have it hand-checked, but sometimes I let it go through the scanners. I never had a problem with the scanner until now.
>>2695989
Might be a specific airport with some specific turbo-boosted scanner, maybe?
I know I've taken film(50-125 speed) dozens of times as carry-on, always through the scanner, and never had this kind of issue.
Did you go through any old airports? older scanners may just blast your luggage.
>>2695984
The old rule of thumb used to be 800iso was marginally an issue, under that the chance of xrays fucking up your film was slim. Definitely hand check anything 1000+ though.
xrays deemed safe for people to operating next to all day shouldn't be strong enough to damage film. Typically when they stop the machine and brighten the image to inspect it, it's not being continually xrayed, they are digitally manipulating the exposure.
>traveling by air
>not getting film hand checked
>not carrying it on the plane with you
>being sugar
Could have been worse. You could have lost shots you did for a client. Next time, don't forget your lead bags.
>>2695955
Like I said before, I really don't think those lines were caused by x-rays. It doesn't look like any sort of x-ray damage that I have ever seen. The fact they are perfectly straight leads me to believe it could've been something else, perhaps at the development stage?
Some personal examples of x-ray damage from when I stupidly checked 5 rolls of Portra.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1799 Image Height 1799 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 269 dpi Vertical Resolution 269 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2009:03:23 20:34:59 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 999 Image Height 999
>>2696313
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 155 dpi Vertical Resolution 155 dpi Image Created 2008:12:31 20:47:18 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 930 Image Height 930
>>2696314
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 418 dpi Vertical Resolution 418 dpi Image Created 2009:05:04 16:42:53 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 800
>>2696313
I think the guy is full of it. I swear I have seen those pics of that girl before on /p/
>>2696313
Agree this looks nothing like X-Ray damage. They call it fogging for a reason. This looks like a light leak.
Unless there's some new (or old) technology that applies the x-rays in some different way, these would be fogged up, and wavy, rather than perfect, except for some completely parallel bands of different exposure.
I'm the OP. I've developed hundreds of rolls of films before. The rolls were damaged while they were still on the film roll. I rolled the film back on the spool with backing paper, the lines are consistent with something that shone through the whole roll, side to side, and across the spool. So it had to go through all the backing paper AND through the spool. Only rolls that have been in one bag at one airport were affected, (3 out of 5), and they were developed in different chemicals at different times, along with other rolls. (For instance, I developed 2 films at once, one was affected, second one was not.)
This was also not a light leak in the camera- the exposed strips are perfectly uniform and also across the ends of the film, which have never been exposed.
I ruled out all other options (except for aliens in the night) before coming up with this. Also, the affected film was bought in different places and at different times.
>>2696314
>>2696315
This looks pretty similar, the difference being that it hit your film at a large angle, while mine straight across. e.g. your roll went in like this: \ and mine like this: --
One of the rolls is hit fairly straight across, the second was hit at a bit of an angle so the lines have \ / \ / \ / \ / \ pattern. If it were hit at more of an angle, it would be the same wave as you have.
I've checked rolls in hand carriage up to 1600 at various airports. 90% of the time they refused the request to hand-check, citing that the scanner is safe for anything below 3200. No signs of damage on any rolls, so I'm inclined to believe it's true. Airports being Helsinki-Vantaa, Tokyo-Narita, Tokyo-Haneda, Nagoya, and Istanbul-Ataturk. Rolls passed through a scanner 2-4 times.
Never tried putting them in the luggage though, I hear that's a surefire way to get them fucked up.
>>2696483
I've had my film through the same scanner maybe 10 times until now, no issues.
Grab one of these. Not just for scanners; you never know what kind of radiation is up in the skies.
>>2696483
I have never been refused a hand check, even at tiny ass little airports. If they ask what ISO I saw its infrared and extremely sensitive. They don't question it
>>2696585
Approx 30 times background radiation
>>2696599
They don't refuse them at tiny airports they refuse at enormous crowded meat grinder airports because they are trying to clear the security checkpoint as efficiently and quickly as possible.
>>2696719
I'd consider the O'hare airport in chicago to be a meat grinder airport and they've never refused a hand check
I've never had them refuse it, but they often insist on opening the box, and if the box is already opened from a previous airport, they want to open the foil. I've heard of them wanting to unroll the film... sheet film basically must go through.
